Examining The Effectiveness Of The End Of 'An Inspector Calls'.

20th Century Drama Coursework -

Examining The Effectiveness

Of The End Of ‘An Inspector Calls’

This essay analyses the procedures used by J.B. Priestley in this play. It will pay close attention to which dramatic devices and structures Priestley utilizes. J.B. Priestley uses a cunning technique to conclude the play. He deceives the reader by installing several false endings. This keeps the audience actively engaged and creates a tense atmosphere.

There is great disparity between the inauguration of the play and the closing stages. At the start, the Birling family is rejoicing due to the engagement between Gerald and Sheila. We know this as stage directions and expressions show genuine joy, Sheila’s father, Mr Birling, declares ‘This is one of the happiest nights of my life…’ There is also dramatic irony as the play was written in 1945, but set in 1912; Birling talks of the Titanic being unsinkable, no likelihood of wars and so forth. The audience already know that the Titanic had sunk and that two World Wars had previously occurred. This gives a more realistic feeling to the play as what Birling stated was true at the time the play was set. The climax is very much to the contrary. The entrance of the inspector is the point at which the tension rises. During the enquiry, the intensity increases dramatically. The authentic ending is sudden and comes to an end with suspense; the final phone call just tells the audience or reader that a real inspector is soon to arrive to investigate the suicide of a young girl. As the characters have begun to relax, the phone call is a great astonishment. This is traditional cliff-hanger which brings the play ‘full circle’; back to the beginning.

The inspector approaches each character differently. As the investigation progresses, Goole uses more aggression, as Mrs Birling states, ‘…you seem to conducting it in a rather peculiar and offensive manner.’ The order of inspection is Mr Birling, Sheila, Gerald, Mrs Birling followed by Eric. The significance of this order, is that each character has more deceitful than the last; steadily increasing apprehension. When interrogating Mr Birling, he is calm and is straightforward. He seems to be letting Mr Birling remember everything, as to not put any words in to his mouth. His discussion with Birling is quite brief, but adequate information is revealed. Although the questioning of Birling is concise, as if to represent less significance, he does commence the downfall of Eva.

With Sheila, again, the audience is shown how she contributed to the descend of Eva Smith. Although she isn’t wholly responsible, she is fully involved. As Goole doesn’t raise his voice or get disconcerted, he just establishes that Sheila is a jealous and cruel-hearted person. Also, Goole doesn’t implicate her, as he does with each character; he lets them implicate themselves.

This is a preview of the whole essay

As the inspector moves on, he seems to get more affected by the whole situation and becomes inflamed. In Mrs Birling’s case, this uproar is produced due to her denial of her responsibility and connection to the situation. As he interviews Gerald, he is still quite calm, but as more mysteries are revealed, the tension rises. As various people interfere, Goole does get slightly annoyed, ‘(sharply) Come along Mr Croft.’ Goole seems to get emotionally involved as Gerald speaks of the fact the Eva is dead, ‘(harshly)Yes, she’s dead.’ As there are less interferences, the inspector calms down a little. Still, he doesn’t imply anything or ask leading questions; he wants the characters to implicate themselves. Goole is quite patient, but again, when interrupted, he is easily annoyed. With Mrs Birling, Goole gets infuriated quite occasionally as she denies various accusations, ‘You’re not telling me the truth.’ As Mrs Birling doesn’t co-operate with Goole, or answer him with some respect, he speaks with sharp tones; ‘(severely) Do you want me to tell you – in plain words?’ As Mrs Birling begins to see her fault and involvement in the matter, she softens her tone, as does Goole. However, as Mrs Birling refuses to accept blame, Goole gets a bit more agitated. As Eric’s interview is more detailed, there are more emotions present in the room. As things get heated, at the beginning of Act 3, Goole swiftly cools things down. To keep focused on matters, and to quicken the investigation, Goole tells Birling to be quiet, ‘Don’t start on that. I want to get on.’ Goole talks quite calmly as Eric doesn’t deny truths and just tells of how he got involved with Eva. As matters get heated again later on, it is Goole again who calms the situation. To make sure that Eric understands fully his involvement, Goole states again how Eva died, and how each character helped to put her in her grave, ‘…and died a horrible death…But each of you helped to kill her. Remember that.’

JB Priestley fits the ending efficiently in to the general structure. Unlike other authors, he uses more than one ending to deceive and confuse the audience, this keeps them engrossed. This creates sufficient tension and suspense in the atmosphere. At the instance the inspector departs from the Birling household, there is a climax of tension between the characters and the audience. What makes the family reflect on their previous deeds, is when Goole states, ‘…you will have to learn in blood, fire and anguish.’ In other words, if people like the Birlings don’t learn their lesson now, they will have to pay in blood. This is a shocking message to the Birlings, but it is also an opportunity to change their way and prevent any further ordeals. When the inspector departs, it is an anti-climax.

This is referred to as an anti-climax, because the audience believe that after discovering the truth, the whole family has been let off easily and that it was just a test of conscience. This puzzles the spectators and gives them a slight shock as the true moral of the incident is revealed. The whole anti-climax division provides escalating tension and bewilderment, especially for the audience. This also gives the on-lookers time to reflect before the tension begins to rise again. The reason why Priestley doesn’t finish the play at this point, is to let the audience acknowledge that the Birlings didn’t get off lightly. This gives a tense ambience and provides a perfect cliffhanger ending. It serves a dramatic purpose and allows the on-lookers to reflect on the rest of the play; the moral and so forth.

In the subsection of Act 3, the family reflect on their actions. The characters react in a dissimilar fashion after Goole disappears.

This shows the reader that a few of the family have learnt their lesson to sufficient extent. It seems to be the elder characters that have dismissed the lesson. The inspector’s final speech seems to have caught the attention of the characters, making them regret their actions, but also to make them realise that they can still change for the better. Although there is a varied response from the characters, they all seem to have some confusion.

The person who seems to have been affected the most, is Mr Birling. We know this as he is the individual who speaks the most, in quite an angry and distressed tone. However, he hasn’t learnt to put his priorities right; he is still focused on future success. He states how his reputation will be heavily damaged, ‘Most of this is bound to come out. There’ll be a public scandal’. This informs us that Arthur is more concerned with his status than the death of a young girl, which he provoked. This leaves the audience feeling that he has overlooked the message present in the events of the night. The spectators now know what lies beneath the splendid exterior of the polluted Birlings. The audience now also know that there is more to the plot than previously thought. There must be some frustration and uncertainty in the minds of the viewers, as the elder characters appear to be unaffected by the whole episode. Very much on the contrary, the younger characters are drawn in to the situation, as Sheila exclaims ‘…The point is, you don’t seem to have learnt anything…’ It seems to be that Sheila has understood the moral of the night most. We know this as Gerald acts as if all has returned to normal by offering the wedding ring. Birling just accepts all the proof that the whole night was a hoax and believes he can end the night as it started, as he pronounces, ‘There you are! Proof positive. The whole story’s just a lot of moonshine.’ He only looks on the bright side.

During the following portion of action of Act 3, we discover that the inspector was a fake. This is Priestley’s first narrative twist as we have already discovered the facts about Goole, now more mysteries are emerging. Gerald’s re-entrance allows the characters to relax a little, as they have revealed the truth behind Goole. Knowing that the whole predicament may have been a fraud, the tension decreases dramatically. Before Gerald re-enters, the other characters speak uneasily. This is evident in the stage directions; Eric responds ‘sulkily’, ‘angrily’, et cetera. Compared to the other characters, Gerald speaks with a slightly jovial tone, knowing he has some good news to bear following the previous quandary. The audience

As Gerald speaks, a new mystery transpires; the whole interrogation was a hoax, ‘There’s no Inspector Goole on the police. That man definitely wasn’t a police inspector at all…’ It is also probable that the girl each character conversed about weren’t the same. The central motive for Priestley involving Gerald attempting to present Sheila with the ring, was to symbolize that everything had returned to routine life. The reason why the phone call to the hospital was included was to ensure that no girl had committed suicide; Birling status is safe. This is also a good dramatic device; the audience doesn’t hear what the hospital is saying, therefore they want to know what is occurring. This scene also releases tension on the stage, but not so much for the audience. They aren’t so well acquainted with what is going on; there is suspense. ‘Have you had a girl brought in this afternoon who committed suicide by drinking disinfectant…Yes I’ll wait…’ On the other hand, they could possibly feel that all is well and will end well. This is because there has been sufficient evidence to assume that the whole state of affairs was a counterfeit, that is to say. the discovery of Goole not being a police officer and the unearthing of the fact that no girl had died of suicide. In contrast, Eric still believes that whether or not a girl died due to their mistakes, whatever they each said they did really happened. To summarise, he feels they should all learn their lessons for the future, to avoid making the same mistakes.

At the genuine finale, Mr Birling receives a phone call informing him that a police inspector is soon to arrive to investigate the suicide of a young girl. ‘That was the police. A girl has just died on the way to the infirmary – after swallowing some disinfectant. And a police inspector is on his way…’ In terms of the plot, Priestly uses this ending for suspense and tension. Morally, he demonstrates that all actions have consequences, good or bad. Also, that the characters must be faced with another challenge in order to force them to learn a lesson. Also, if you have been given two chances at something, use them wisely; Goole being a test of conscience and the actual inspector the true test. If the play had ceased at the inspector’s speech, it would have still been a tense ending. The focal message would have altered; learn your lesson after one chance. This would tell the audience that you can get away with committing crimes.

In Stephen Daldry’s theatre production, he uses the set to symbolise what is happening to the Birlings. He uses the house collapsing to represent the downfall of the Birlings. This reinforces the messages portrayed in the play; your bad deeds come back to haunt you, even with the shelter of wealth and status. Daldry also shows the characters reassembling the house, believing everything has returned to a customary way of life, only to be shocked once more.

The true ending creates a dramatic change in the tension and atmosphere, as this is more effective to confound the audience. As most of the characters believe they are safe from a bad reputation, specifically Birling, and that they have just been fooled. The ironic element is that just as Birling is saying how the youth can’t take a joke, the phone rings, ‘…the famous younger generation who know it all. And they can’t even take a joke-. The telephone rings sharply… As Birling notifies the other members of the family that an inspector is soon to arrive, the atmosphere suddenly changes to a slightly normal environment, to an apprehensive ambience.

As the curtain closes, there is a moral impact on the audience. They have been shown that everyone is given a certain amount of chances; if you don’t use them well, you will fall in to a self-dug grave. The way Priestley has used narrative twists enables the audience to get emotionally involved.

Priestley cunningly binds the conclusion and the Inspector’s speech. As the Inspector warned them, if they do not learn their lesson now they will have to suffer, ‘you will have to learn in blood, fire and anguish.’ As not all of the family took notice of this warning, they will have to pay in blood; the inspector coming to inspect the family over the matter of a dead girl.

I feel that the conclusion is unpredictable and very tense, rather than exciting. This is because we don’t actually know what is being said by the police; suspense. The ironic thing, is that at the point where the phone rings, Birling is talking about how the youth takes things too seriously, ‘…the famous younger generation who know it all. And they can’t even take a joke –‘; which is followed by the phone call. This wasn’t predictable at all, compared to the previous ‘endings’, as they exposed misrepresentations, which helped clear the Birlings’ consciences, but the real ending provides their downfall.

If I had to produce a version of ‘An Inspector Calls’, and I had to express tension, to enhance the drama already present in Act, I would use the following techniques. I might utilize the collapsing of the house, as in Stephen Daldry’s production. Lighting would be important; use dark, red colours to represent tension. Sound effects might also be appropriate; e.g. a thunder storm/explosion as the play ends, and so on.

By Surjeet Mann